I try to give you
shortcuts through this incredibly complex system in which we live, so you can
see the big picture and understand that the world doesn't just stumble along
down through time and pick itself up after accidents and decide what to do;
but, rather, the future is always planned, by those in power. That should be no
news at all, to those who have studied the projects, because they announce what
they do at the top. If you go into their books at the top, they tell you how
they plan things way ahead, just like big business and doing investments for 50
years or 100 years in the future, it's the same idea; and, we find, in the
United Nations, for instance, they have 50 year projects for one, 100 years for
another, maybe a 150 for another project. That's what foundations and
institutes can do; they can make a mandate and hire people, retire them, hire
more people and stick to the mandate and pull it off. The Communist system was
run exactly the same way, they're now using that system across the world, with
5 year plans for one thing, 10 for another, 50, etc. That's how it's run.

We're going into
the big planned society, where every minute detail of your life will be, not
only monitored but planned for you, that's the 'utopia' they're bringing
in.

Also: look into www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu and you can download transcripts of these talks, written in the various
languages of Europe; you can print them up and pass them round to your
friends.

It's funny how
synchronicities work, because, at the weekend, for the first time in ages, I
turned on the rabbit ear TV, where I get two stations and watched the public
broadcasting giving one of its propaganda spiels, as they're famous to do,
about global warming and how the crops are failing across the world and the
whole programme was about one man in a small team, supposedly with limited
funds, who went across all the way into Syria, looking for original seed,
supposedly to help the farmers in countries like Australia, who find their
crops are failing. They're failing because they've standardised the seed.
Standardised seed, every seed is the same as the next seed and, if something
hits them, pestilence or anything else, or they can't stand a dry season, they
all go under, it all perishes.

During the
programme, it was interesting to watch how they went to get original seeds in
little valleys and canyons and so on, across not only the Middle East, but, as
I say, right into Syria itself and they hit pay dirt, where people had not
accepted, and here's what came out: they had not accepted standardised seeds
for anything from all the Aid Agencies that had come in there for the last 30
years, dumping their modified seeds on them. That's really the problem: the
modified seeds might be ok / fine for Pennsylvania but they do no good in
Australia or anywhere else, if they've 10-15 years of dry season. What they
also said was that the average crop in Syria, of even lentils, had maybe 15
different kinds of local lentils in it. That way, if pests hit them, one strain
might go down but the rest would be resistant to it; each one has its own
properties. So, that's really the problem that's been happening today, it's do
with the fact that standardised seed for uniform crops are so vulnerable to so
many different things, that, when a crop goes under, the whole crop goes under
and then you've got problems. I'll be back with more, after this break.

=== BREAK ===

Hi folks, I am Alan
Watt, we're Cutting Through The Matrix. The documentary I was talking about
also showed, at the end of the programme, who this particular man, who was
struggling through the heats of the desert and so on, really was, as he rushed
back to store all of this natural seed that he'd found up in that island just
off Norway, where they're storing it all for, you know, the survivors, that are
going to come through all the present crises.

This ties in with
what I was talking about last week, because I talked about a group who pretty
well managed the history of a hundred years, for the whole last century and
they're managing this century as well. The Council on Foreign Relations, as
it's better known and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, as it's
called in Britain; private organisations that, literally, have always been on
both sides of everything, including all the conflicts. In fact, it's through
conflict that their grand design seems to play out to their own ideals.

Here's an article
that ties in with this, now, I told you a while ago, that the CFR and the Royal
Institute of International Affairs was involved, and had done studies for
years, on this coming food problem that's been created across the planet, as I
say, because they've standardised the seeds everywhere and encouraged people to
just throw away the old stuff and now they're helpless when their whole crop
goes under to a pest or it can't handle a bit of drought and much of their own
stuff did handle the droughts, they could survive on very little moisture. This
is planned this way, because, in all wars, you go for the food and the water,
shelter, clothing and all the rest of it follows after. This is from the ft.com
which is a group from the Financial Times, on the global economy, January 26th
2009:

World warned of ‘food crunch’ threat

By Javier Blas in
London, first published 25th of January.

The world faces ‘the real risk of a food crunch’ if governments do not
take immediate action to address the agricultural impact of climate
change

With the weather
change.

and water scarcity, according to an authoritative report out on
Monday.

There's your key
words: authoritative report; so, it must be true.

Chatham House,

That's the
headquarters for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, right.

the London-based think-tank,

They've managed to
escape the name of it and just call it by the house name, Chatham House.

the London-based think-tank

The ones who have
been running the world for the last 100 years,

suggests that the recent fall in food prices is only a temporary
reprieve and that prices are set to resume their upward trend once the world
emerges from the current downturn.

Like a Depression?
-- Downturn?

“There is therefore a real risk of a ‘food crunch’ at some point in the
future,

You'd better
believe it, because they're going to bring it on, because that's the way to get
us all to our knees, into a new system.

which would fall particularly hard on import-dependent countries and on
poor people everywhere”, the report states. “Food prices are poised to rise
again”, it adds. The warning is made as agriculture ministers and United
Nations officials gather from Monday in Madrid for a UN meeting on food
security likely to conclude that last year’s food crisis, with almost 1bn
people hungry, is far from over.

These are the same
agencies that dumped all standardised seeds across the planet. Remember
that.

The UN will warn ministers in Madrid that “as the global financial
crisis deepens, hunger is likely to increase” under the impact of rising
unemployment and lower remittances, according to three officials briefed ahead
of the meeting.

The prices of agricultural commodities such as rice and wheat jumped to
a record high last year, triggering food riots from Haiti and Egypt to
Bangladesh and Cameroon and prompting appeals for food aid for more than 30
countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

Where's their
answer to all of this? You'll see how it all ties in together. And it says
here, near the bottom, it's always near the bottom, after they've scared the
bejesus out you, and that's the whole intent of it / the article, it
says:

The report recommends governments to invest more in agricultural
production and an increase in international aid in this sphere, too.

Containing global warming will require an additional €175bn in annual
investment by 2020, according to a European Union draft paper, writes Joshua
Chaffin in Brussels.

The paper, which says much of the €175bn ($227bn, £167bn) investment
will have to be borne by the developed world,

The Developed
world, and see this is right along with the GATT and the NAFTA treaties and all
the other treaties, that the first world countries must, basically, bail out
all the poor ones to bring them up to a certain standard and that also is
written in that the first world countries will start coming down. There'll be
some happy medium, as the water levels settle together. That's the whole thesis
on this. It says:

also forecasts that tens of billions of euros in spending will be needed
to help poorer countries prepare for even moderate warming.

Some of the ways that the EU proposes to raise those funds include
requiring developed nations to pay for their annual carbon emissions,

They're all
hammering on this and Obama, of course, is pushing this in the States

and levying taxes on aviation and maritime transportation.

That's everything
that comes into your country, all the food and everything.

The EU should also expand its emissions trading system into a global
carbon market

That's what the big
boys are going to love, dealing with this one.

and explore the establishment of a multilateral insurance pool to help
deal with natural disasters that result from global warming.

I hate using the
term ‘global warming’; I'd just rather say ‘a change in the weather’.

The final paper, to be released by the European Commission, the EU
executive body, on Wednesday, sets out the bloc’s position ahead of
negotiations in Copenhagen this December aimed at creating a global agreement
to fight climate change.

The whole outcome
of it is: all the so-called first world countries are going to be taxed into
the dirt, for this, this big con; and, last week, I was going through many of
the cons, the same group that's run the history of the last 100 years have done
in the past. Here we're into the next
part of it, as they bring us all to our knees, to bring in a new economic
system, where we will, ultimately serve the State. That's what it's about. It's
astonishing.

Last week, I talked
about the revolution and how revolution has really been fairly continuous,
since the 1500s, when the Rosicrucian Societies broke out, at that time in the
Court of Queen Elizabeth 1st, and then pamphlets were plastered all
over Paris, the following century; and then Germany too and other places,
talking about a New World Order.

That was taken up
by other people that are well-known in history, including Adam Weishaupt who
coined the term that's used on the seal of the United States Novus ordo seclorum,
a new world order. It wasn't a grass roots thing, it didn't come from the
bottom. No rebellion ever came from the public at the bottom. You might see a
rebellion comes, but not a revolution; revolutions are planned, because they
want to succeed. It takes sometimes a generation or two to plan a revolution,
all successful ones do it that way.

I read from
Bakunin, who was one of the professional revolutionary and this is an article
that he wrote in the Journal El Progress Geneva in 1869, to give you a clue
about the associations that were involved and actually promoted revolution. It
says:

In this epoch the bourgeoisie

The bourgeoisie
are, I'll just say, the middle-classes; they meant upper middle-classes in
those days.

too had created an international association, a universal and formidable
one, Freemasonry. It would be a substantial error to judge the Freemasonry of
the last century, or even that of the first part of the present century,

That's the
1800s.

by what it is today. The bourgeois institution par excellence,
Freemasonry, in its development, in its growing power at first and later in its
decadence, represented in a way the development, power and moral and
intellectual decadence of the bourgeoisie. Today, fallen to the sad position of
a senile old intriguer, it is a useless, sometimes malevolent and always
ridiculous nullity, whereas, before 1830 and especially before 1793, having
gathered together at its core, with very few exceptions, all the minds of the
elite,

See: it was an
elite movement. Revolution was from the elite.

the most ardent hearts, the proudest spirits, the most audacious
personalities, it had constituted an active, powerful, and truly beneficial
institution.

Now, there are many
books of the period written, and before that too, that were quite open about
the fact that Freemasonry, it was through Freemasonry and their associations in
the coffee houses in France and so on that they gradually worked the people up,
getting them ready for revolution. It's no secret the United States was founded
by professional, I call them professional Freemasons, active Freemasons and you
can see their symbols everywhere.
Bakunin goes on:

It is known that all the principal actors of the first revolution were
Freemasons and that when this revolution broke out it was able to find, thanks
to Freemasonry, friends and devoted and powerful collaborators in all other
countries,

That's true, Thomas
Paine was a professional revolutionary, he came over from England, to take part
in the American Revolution; once it was over, he went to France, to help them
set up and run their revolution.

a fact that was assuredly of great help in its victories. But it is
equally clear that the triumph of the revolution killed Freemasonry, for once
the revolution had largely fulfilled the aspirations of the bourgeoisie, and
had enabled it to displace the old nobility, the bourgeoisie went on quite
naturally, after having been an exploited and oppressed class for such a long
time, to become in its turn a privileged class, a class of exploiters,
oppressive, conservative and reactionary in nature, the most reliable friend
and supporter of the State.

I'm going to go
into this deeper, after the following break.

=== BREAK ===

Hi folks, I am Alan
Watt and Cutting Through The Matrix. History is always presented as little
factions unrelated to the next faction, but nothing is further from the truth.
We've had really perpetual revolution, sometimes bloody, but mainly through
cultural alterations, for centuries; and, even though Bakunin decries Masonry
as becoming kind of fat and obsolete, he's not telling quite the truth, because
there are factions of it that kept going and Freemasonry was always subservient
to the upper classes; the aristocracy you might say. You can go into the
history through Mackey's Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry, you'll see just that,
you'll find out who is supposedly the heads of the Grand Lodge of England for
instance.

Yet, at all times,
through history, you'll find that it doesn't matter what side that you think
you're on, there’s another hand controlling both of them, and guiding it,
because it's the outcome that's necessary for the thesis, antitheses and
synthesis. The synthesis is the goal; the conflict between the first two brings
you to that goal, that's the whole point of it in conflicts. It was the
Intelligentsia that have been behind all the major revolutions, the successful
revolutions. When the people at the bottom riot, that's what it is, it's an
unorganised riot; it’s a last desperate stand to keep something that's being
taken from them, generally. If we don't
understand that this is truly an on-going intellectual war, which is very
obvious today, then we'll never get the point at we’ll never understand it;
because if you watch how the big foundations operate today, they use all the
graduates of the universities, they fund the universities; the universities, in
turn, become authorities and they advise governments and they're all on board
across the whole planet with the same agenda.

Go into the
writings of Sir Thomas Huxley, the grandfather of Aldous Huxley. Sir Thomas
Huxley took up the banner of Darwinism and Darwinism is worth a good look at,
because it was a religion, a religion created to destroy, once again, all that
was, to bring in something new; and, they're still running on Darwinism today.
Sir Thomas Huxley recruited lots of well-known writers of the period, including
H.G. Wells, and trained them at the red tie school, red for revolution; and,
their whole goal was bring to bring more intellectuals into the system for the
revolution, to bring in a new world order.

What is a new world
order? What does it really mean? What they mean is that, as Jefferson called
them, the natural aristocracy, had the right to rule the world; the intelligentsia
is what they're talking about.

During the Cold
War, that finished around 1989, supposedly when the Berlin Wall came down,
you'll find that pretty well all spies, all of them in fact, that were double
spies, double agents that worked for the Soviets, and before that, go into
Adolf Hitler's Germany, the ones who worked for Adolf Hitler, all came from
Oxford and Cambridge, they'd all been to Eton. They all came from the
privileged class. Not from the bottom ranks, the lower classes, never happened.
Constant revolution by the intelligentsia; and, it's the young minds that are
recruited at universities, it's still on-going, for revolution and they don't
understand that very old people are conditioning their minds and giving them,
what they think, is their generation's revolution. This is the constant
technique that's always used.

It's a planned
future we're going into and Sir Thomas Huxley, in his own writings, laid out
the agenda in his book Man Stands Alone, he said that the problems of the future
will be over-population. There's always been a mandate for this; eugenics is
another thing. He talked about the creation of imbeciles and how many
generations of imbeciles do you want. He said man is just an animal, basically,
and would have to be treated as such.

He also talked
about something called spirit, even though he was an atheist or a humanist, he
talked about spirit. Well, he was talking about the Masonic revolutionary
spirit of fire, that's what they mean by that, when they refer to spirit; and,
where does the whole origin of fire come from? Ancient symbology, for the
illumined ones, fire destroys that which is substance and releases a heat and a
light at the same time. It alters everything, destroys all that was, but at the
same time it is giving something off that is new; it stands for pure brilliant
intellect as well.

There's a book that
goes into this by James H. Billington called Fire in the Minds of Men and he
was the official librarian for Congress, so he was no conspiracy nut and I'll read
a bit of this, when I come back from this break.

=== BREAK ===

Hi folks, I am Alan
Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix.

I'm going to read
the introduction of Fire In The Minds of Men: Origins Of The Revolutionary
Faith, by James H. Billington. At the time of writing it, he was the official
librarian for Congress; and, just before I read this actually, I'd like to talk
about, or just mention: I'm going to leave a link, at the end of the show where
you can see how the London School of Economics gave us the 'trickle down'
theory and how they ran, supposedly, the economy, this great intellectual
group, that's attached to Oxford, of course, I think Oxford even set it up.
Everything comes from Oxford and Cambridge. It's quite interesting and worth a
little look at, it explains the Trickle Down Theory, of economics. Back to this
book, he says:

This book seeks to trace the origins of a faith - perhaps the
faith of our time. Modern revolutionaries are believers, no less committed and
intense than were the Christians or Muslims of an earlier era. What is new is
the belief that a perfect secular

That's
worldly.

order will emerge from the forcible overthrow of traditional authority.
This inherently implausible idea gave dynamism to Europe in the nineteenth
century, and has become the most successful ideological export of the West to
the world in the twentieth.

This is a story not of revolutions, but of revolutionaries: the
innovative creators of a new tradition. The historical frame is the century and
a quarter that extends from the waning of the French Revolution in the late
eighteenth century to the beginnings of the Russian Revolution in the early
twentieth. The theatre was Europe of the industrial era; the main stage,
journalistic offices within great European cities.

Because you see,
the intelligentsia and journalism always worked hand in hand, as they still do
today; and, their main method was propaganda. Propaganda was not invented by
Bernays, by any means, it was well-understood as a science long
before.

At centre stage stood the characteristic, nineteenth-century European
revolutionary: a thinker lifted up by ideas, not a worker or peasant bent down
by toil. He was part of a small elite whose story must be told "from
above", much as it may displease those who believe that history in general
(and revolutionary history in particular) is basically made by socio-economic
pressures "from below".

The people below
are always used for revolutions, but they don't design them; there's always an
elite who does it for you.

This "elite" focus does not imply indifference to the mass
human suffering which underlay the era of this narrative. It reflects only the
special need to concentrate here on the spiritual thirst of those who think
rather than on the material hunger of those who work. For it was passionate
intellectuals who created and developed the revolutionary faith. This work
seeks to explore concretely the tradition of revolutionaries, not to explain
abstractly the process of revolution. My approach has been inductive rather
than deductive, explorative rather than definitive: an attempt to open up
rather than "cover" the subject.

My general conclusions can be stated simply at the outset - and, for the
sake of argument, more bluntly than they may appear in the text that
follows.

The revolutionary faith was shaped not so much by the critical
rationalism of the French Enlightenment (as is generally believed) as by the
occultism and proto-romanticism of Germany.

Occultism = that
what’s hidden.

This faith was incubated in France during the revolutionary era within a
small subculture of literary intellectuals, who were immersed in
journalism,

The media.

fascinated by secret societies and subsequently infatuated with
'ideologies' as a secular surrogate for religious belief.

The professional revolutionaries who first appeared during the French
Revolution sought, above all, radical simplicity. Their deepest conflicts
revolved around the simple worlds of their key slogan: liberty, equality,
fraternity.

It's funny, because
if you go into Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma, of the Ancient and Accepted
Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, you'll find that he goes through those three
words and then he tells you that no thing could possibly exist, even though
they used it to get the masses to go through revolutions for them. It says
here:

The French Revolution also initially invoked similar ideas, but the new
and more collectivist ideals of fraternity and equality soon arose to rival the
older concept of liberty. The words nationalism and communism were first
invented in the 1790s to define the simpler, more sublime, seemingly less
selfish ideals of fraternity and equality, respectively. The basic struggle
that subsequently emerged among committed revolutionaries was between advocates
of national revolution for a new type of fraternity and those of social
revolution for a new type of equality.

They always split
you into two, even though you think you're on the same side, they will always
do that, they get you into factions.

The French national example and republican ideal dominated the
revolutionary imagination throughout the first half of the nineteenth century.
Exiled Francophile intellectuals from Poland and Italy largely fashioned the
dominant concept of revolutionary nationalism - inventing most modern ideas of
guerrilla violence and wars of national liberation, expressing their
essentially emotional ideal best in mythic histories, vernacular poetry and
operatic melodrama.

They used all of
the arts, as they still do today, as a main method of propaganda, because,
since people don't really think through things, they don't reason, through
fiction, you'll find they're very-very influenced through fiction, emotion, so
emotion fixed with a topic will stay in the mind and you will go along with the
emotion that you saw in the play etc.

Rival social revolutionaries began to challenge the romantic
nationalists after the revolutions of 1830; and this socialist tradition
increasingly predominated after the forming of the First International in 1864
and the movement of the revolutionary cause from French to German and Russian
leadership. Social revolutionaries expressed their essentially rationalistic
ideal best in prose pamphlets and prosaic organisations. Their hidden model was
the impersonal and dynamic machine of factory industry rather than the
personalised but static lodge of the Masonic aristocracy.

The Masonic
aristocracy.

No less fateful than the schism between national and social
revolutionaries was the conflict among social revolutionaries that began in the
1840s between Marx and Proudhon. The former's focus was on destroying the
capitalist economic system clashed with the latter's war on the centralised
bureaucratic state.

If you notice the
system that's coming in now, it’s a new economic system and it's been shouted
from the highest hilltops, in the last few weeks; and, it will be a new
economic system, a planned society is what they're taking us to, where those at
the top will live in incredible luxury, even though, technically, a lot of them
will still serve the state; but, they won't have to pay for anything, they'll
still live in palaces and have servants etc.

The word intelligentsia and the thirst for ideology migrated east from
Poland to Russia (and from a national to a social revolutionary cause) through
the Russian student radicals of the 1860s, who developed a now ascetic type of
terrorism. Lenin drew both on this Russian tradition of violence and on German
concepts of organisation to create the Bolshevism that eventually brought the
revolutionary tradition out of the wilderness and into power.

The revolutionary faith developed in nineteenth-century Europe only within
those societies that had not previously (1) legitimised ideological dissent by
breaking with medieval forms of religious authority and (2) modified
monarchical power by accepting some form of organised political opposition. In
northern Europe and North America, where these conditions were met by
Protestant and parliamentary traditions, the revolutionary faith attracted
almost no indigenous adherents. Thus, the revolutionary tradition can be seen
as a form of political-ideological opposition that arose first against
authoritarian Catholicism (in France, Italy and Poland) and then against other
religiously-based autocracies (in Lutheran Prussia, Orthodox Russia).

What they did you
see, first, to change everything, they looked at the system as it was and the
main opponent at one time, in fact the only real opponent was the Roman
Catholic system; and, therefore, they went to war with that first. Very intense
wars, you have to look at the histories of the wars, the religious wars, to see
how horrific and for how long they went on.

Once that was done,
the same groups that had courted any opposition and eventually the Protestant
sects, they used them too. They had to destroy them as well, in turn. So,
you're used and then you're destroyed, because the goal is a completely
different new world order than the one you think. That's why you don't follow
leaders; do your homework and know what on earth is going on.

It's interesting
too that Lenin himself, who took over from Mazzini, now Mazzini was a
revolutionary professional, again trained, and he also took over as the head of
Masonry for one point, from Albert Pike and who took over from him was Lenin,
who then set up the Bolshevik, ultimately called the Soviet system, in Russia.
I've also gone through the fact that the Royal Institute of International
Affairs was heavily involved all during that era. The Milner Group and those
boys were heavily involved in it. Russia was called the second great
experiment; the United States was the first. They studied what they'd done, the
kind of outcomes that they had and would they suit the purposes or would they
have to go further. How would they get to their next objective? That's why
they're called experiments; who does experiments? Scientists do experiments.
Think of the words that you read.

Before attempting to chronicle the drama, the dogmas and the disputes of
this new, secular religion-in-the-making,

And it is a
religion

it is important to linger on the mystery and the majesty of faith
itself. The heart of revolutionary faith, like any faith, is fire

Back to fire
again.

ordinary material transformed into extraordinary form, quantities of
warmth suddenly changing the quality of substance. If we do not know what fire
is, we know what it does. It burns. It destroys life; but it also supports it
as source of heat, light and - above all - fascination.

Fascination.

Man, who works with fire as homo faber, also seems foredoomed in his
freedom to play with it as homo ludens.

Now, if you
remember - those that have not been so jaded by all the recent slaughter that's
gone on across the planet - if you can remember the slaughter at Waco, when,
the government sent people and the BATF just to wipe out a whole bunch of
families and children. That was literally a symbolic act as well, to tell
everybody that religion is over. You do not longer have any special privileges,
it's over; and, not only that, they hate you, they utterly hate you; those who
rule hate you. At the end, when they
set fire to it all and burned the whole place down, with the people in it
(there are videos out there where you'll see) the BATF bowing to the flames.
Ask what kind of brotherhood they belong to; bowing to the flames, they love
fire.

Our particular chapter in history unfolds at a time of physical
transformation in Europe that was almost as momentous as the first discovery of
fire must have been in the mists of antiquity. The industrial revolution was
permitting men to leash fire to machines - and to unleash fire power on each
other - with a force undreamed of in earlier ages. In the midst of those fires
appeared the more elusive flame that Dostoevsky described in the most searching
work of fiction ever written about the revolutionary movement: The
Possessed.

He wrote about it
in a fictional work, but there’s more written about often in fiction than
they'll tell you in reality. The story,
basically, was about a small provincial town that was suddenly inspired by new
ideas and then afterwards, a fire broke out and a local official shouted in the
middle of night:

"The fire is in the minds of men, not in the roofs of
building"

Hence the title of
this book.

Dostoevsky was writing under the impact of two great fires that
disturbed him deeply and heralded the transfer of revolutionary leadership from
France to Russia. These fires had broken out in imperial St. Petersburg in the
spring of 1861 (where the emancipation of the serfs seemed to have inflamed
rather than calmed passions) and in imperial Paris ten years later (where the
flaming defeat of the Paris Commune ended forever the era of romantic
illusions).

The flame of faith had begun its migrations a century earlier, when some
European aristocrats transferred their lighted candles from Christian alters to
Masonic lodges. The flame of occult alchemists, which had promised to turn
dross into gold, reappeared at the centre of new 'circles'

Now, what did I
call those groups within the Royal Institute of International Affairs? They
call them circles.

seeking to recreate a golden age:

To recreate a
golden age, we hear that over and over, with the idealists of the day and
past-times as well, to recreate a golden age.

Bavarian Illuminists conspiring against the Jesuits, French
Philadelphians against Napoleon, Italian charcoal burners against the
Hapsburgs. When the most important anti-Napoleonic conspiracy was ridiculed for
attempting "to use as a lever something which is only a match" its
leader replied that: With a match one has no need of a lever; one does not lift
up the world, one burns it.

You burn the
world.

The leader in spreading the conspiracy to Italy soon noted that
"the Italian flame" had spread "the fire of freedom

That's what they
called it: the fire of freedom.

to the most frozen land of Petersburg". There the first Russian
revolution occurred in December 1825. Its slogan "From the spark comes the
flame!" was originated by the first man to predict an egalitarian social
revolution in the eighteenth-century (Sylvain Marechal) and revived by the
first man to realise such a revolution in the twentieth (Lenin, who used it as
the epigram for his journal, The Spark).

Always fire; always
fire.

A recurrent mythic model for revolutionaries - early romantics, the
young Marx, the Russians of Lenin's time - was Prometheus,

Prometheus,
remember it was he -

who stole the fire from the god for the use of mankind. The Promethean
faith of revolutionaries resembled in many respects the general modern belief
that science would lead men out of darkness into light.

A world run by a
scientific elite.

Back in a moment,
after these messages.

=== BREAK ===

Hi folks, I am Alan
Watt and we're Cutting Through The Matrix, continuing with the some of the book
Fire in the Minds of Men by James H. Billington. He says:

But there was also the more pointed millennial assumption that, on the
new day that was dawning,

The new day that
was dawning and they've got lots of paintings with the sun rising. You'll see
that in the portrait of Benjamin Franklin toasting the new president, the first
president of the United States and he says, in his own works mind you, that's
Benjamin Franklin that is, in his own letters, he says we toast this
grandmaster of these United States. Getting back to the book, it says:

the sun would never set.

Meaning light, intellect
would always rule from then on.

Early, during the French upheaval was born a "solar myth of the
revolution" suggesting that the sun was rising on a new era in which
darkness would vanish forever.

Meaning:
ignorance.

This image became implanted "at a level of consciousness that
simultaneously interpreted something real and produced a new reality." The
new reality they sought was radically secular and stridently simple. The ideal
was not the balance complexity of the new American federation, but the occult
simplicity of its great seal: an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid over the words
Novus Ordo Seclorum. In search of primal, natural truths, revolutionaries
looked back to pre-Christian antiquity - adopting pagan names like
"Anaxagorus" Chaumette and "Anacharsis" Cloots, idealising
above all the semimythic Pythagoras as the model
intellect-turned-revolutionary and the Pythagorean belief in prime
numbers,

That's how they
communicate.

geometric forms and the higher harmonies of music.

That's the tones,
in fact, from Pythagoras, you get ton, the weight measurement; the tone, the
sound etc.

Many of the same Strasbourg musicians who first played La Marseillasie
in 1792 had introduced Mozart's

Mozart was a
Freemason; and, if you've ever seen the Magic Flute, you'll see an awful lot in
that particular show.

Magic Flute to French audiences in the same city only a few months
earlier and Mozart's illuminist message seemed to explain the fuller meaning of
the jour de gloire

Day of glory.

that Rouget de Lisle's anthem had proclaimed: The rays of the sun have
vanquished the night, The powers of darkness have yielded to the light. The
rising sun brought heat as well as light, for the fire was generally lit not at
high noon on a tabula rasa by some philosopher-king, but rather by some unknown
guest arriving at midnight amidst the excesses of Don Giovanni's banquet,
"Communism" the label Lenin finally adopted, was invented not by the
great Rousseau but by a Rousseau du ruisseau (Rousseau of the gutter): the
indulgent fetishist and nocturnal street-walker in pre-revolutionary Paris,
Restif de la Bretonne. Thus the revolutionary label that now controls the
destiny of more than one billion people in the contemporary world sprang from
the erotic imagination of an eccentric writer.

And, by the way,
you'll find an awful lot of their main writers were highly neurotic, some had
been kicked out of different countries for, literally exposing themselves,
although they couldn’t help it, it seems, and they were the greatest
propagandists of all that were used, look into Voltaire, very interesting
history.

I hear the music
coming in for tonight; and, so, from Hamish and myself, in Ontario Canada, it's
goodnight and may your god, or your gods, go with you.